As part of my class teaching, here is a Yahoo Pipes example I created
and shared with the public:
http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/search?q=neurospora_assembly_pipe&x=0&y=0
It demonstrates how to use Yahoo Pipes to fetch a csv dataset, filter
it, replace patterns in the query results, and rename certain elements
to make them recognizable as rss feed elements.
Cheers,
-Kei
Kei Cheung wrote:
Since we are talking about user interface, another thing we might want
to consider is the possible intersection of web 2.0 and semantic web
(some people call it web 3.0 :-) ) in terms of semantic mashup of
scientific data and tools. Current web 2.0 technologies (e.g., flickr,
myspace, ...) provide great ways of mashing things up over the web
because of its ease of use and its leverage of existing web
technologies. I think it would be great if we can somehow combine the
ease of use and semantic richness provided by web 2.0 and semantic
technologies, respectively to build useful applications for scientific
users (killer apps?!). To this end, I'm thinking yahoo pipes as an
example. One can use yahoo pipes to create workflow (integrating data
and tools) graphically. It works for url, csv (comma separated
values), feeds, atoms, xml, etc, but not rdfs, owl, ontologies, lsid,
etc. Wouldn't it be nice if we can merge something like yahoo pipes
with semantic web?
Cheers,
-Kei
Matthias Samwald wrote:
Note that it's impossible to answer the intended query above
without SPARQL-DL - and the most intuitive syntax for this kind of
query in SPARQL-DL may not be triple-based, cosmeticised or not.
E.g. "ALL astrocyte develops_from SOME ?"
I am heavily biased towards TBox queries - for ABox queries, a
syntactic patina over SPARQL may be very welcome.
At the moment I am thinking about ways of expressing subsets of OWL DL
in a way that is more easily mapped to the RDF triple model. I simply
cannot accept how complicated and sometimes unintuitive the
representation of certain OWL constructs in RDF is, although I really
tried to. For example, we could have a convention that the triple
"Class1 property1 Class2" could be interpreted as as 'some values from'
restriction. Of course, not all of OWL could be represented in such a
simplified RDF format (e.g., how would we represent 'all values from'?).
Yes, I know that we can create OWL APIs and dedicated OWL query
languages to make it work. However, I think that technologies should
have a certain 'elegance' to find widespread adoption. If we look at
some of our HCLS ontologies, we are seeing a XML document that
represents a RDF graph in an unnecessarily complicated and error-prone
way. And if we look at the RDF graph we see that it represents an OWL
ontology in an unnecessarily complicated and error-prone way. A
developer that is new to all these technologies might get the impression
that the Semantic Web layer cake [1] is just a heap of bad compromises
and failed attempts of creating compatibility.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W3c-semantic-web-layers.svg
cheers,
Matthias Samwald
